Abortion Existing On A Thin Majority

October 26, 1986|By Ellen Goodman, Washington Post Writers Group.

If there is a place in this country where a single vote really counts, it`s in the tiny precinct known as the Supreme Court. The open ballot in those chambers gave women the right to choose abortion back in 1973 and, any day, a new ballot could take it away.

For this reason, there are people who spend their lives tracking the nine residents of that unique polling place. They note that when Warren Burger moved out and Antonin Scalia moved in, the Roe vs. Wade majority slipped to one.

The attention to voting patterns on the high bench has been so intense lately that relatively little attention has been paid to the voting patterns by those of us heading for the real polling booths this fall. Indeed, the abortion issue has had a lower profile in these national elections than in any since 1978.

It`s an odd lull, since the legality of abortion in the country may rest on the new Senate. If there`s another court opening in the Reagan era, it`s the senators who have to confirm or reject the appointment. The hearings to confirm William Rehnquist as Chief Justice this summer were just a dress rehearsal for the full-scale battle that would emerge over that last swing vote.

If Senate races hinging on this issue are fewer than expected, so are the number of ballot measures. Referenda haven`t been successful for right-to-life groups. Out of 19 that have been proposed since 1978, only one passed, and by a margin of less than one percent. Only four questions sponsored by anti-abortion groups have made it to the ballots this year in Oregon, Arkansas, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

These four, however, are different tests for the future direction of the anti-abortion movement. In Oregon, the anti`s have cloaked their opposition to abortion strictly as a taxpayer issue. This is the tactic that brought them their sole victory, in Colorado. The most straightforward of all the ballot measures, the Oregon initiative, would stop state funding of abortion for poor women.

The other three measures are all more sweeping, and outlandish. They are written for the day when, the anti`s hope, the Supreme Court strikes down Roe vs. Wade and the issue of abortion goes to the state legislatures. If these proposals pass, abortion would only be legal then, in these three states, to prevent the death of the mother.

In Massachusetts, the wording of the proposition is incomprehensible to anyone who hasn`t majored in double negatives. But if it passes, the state would not only be ready to outlaw abortion, it would immediately take away funding for poor women and give the legislature the power to license facilities (maybe out of existence).

The questions in Arkansas and Rhode Island would go further to establish the civil rights of the fetus. In Arkansas, anti-abortion groups are asking the voters to agree `` . . . that the public policy of the state is to promote the health, safety and welfare of every unborn child from conception until birth.`` After that, apparently, they`re on their own. In Rhode Island, the referendum describes unborn offspring ``beginning with fertilization`` as persons. This means that, if Roe vs. Wade were overturned, not only would abortion be banned, so would the IUD and some forms of the pill, which expel the fertilized egg from the uterus.

Does this sound too iffy to worry about? The fact that there is a pro-choice majority at the moment in the Supreme Court makes abortion a less-compelling issue in this election. There is no judicial nominee coming before the Senate today. It`s hard to worry about ballot measures geared to an unknown future.

In fact, it`s hard for most Americans to worry that this right could be overturned at all. In every poll, Americans overwhelmingly support legalized abortion. Last year, when a Harris poll asked whether people thought abortion would continue to be legal, 74 percent said ``yes.``

But even in the midst of a campaign, it`s worth taking another glance at the numbers in that tiny precinct, the Supreme Court. In 1973, there was a pro-choice majority of five. In 1986, there is a majority of one. And counting.